Friedman and Bruni

The Moustache of Wisdom, in “Moore’s Law Turns 50,” says at 86, the man himself looks back at some of the predictions he made and how they have held up.  Mr. Bruni, in “The Bitter Backdrop to 2016,” says we’re blue in ways that have nothing to do with party.  He then has a question: can any candidate color us confident?  Here’s TMOW:

On April 19, 1965, just over 50 years ago, Gordon Moore, then the head of research for Fairchild Semiconductor and later one of the co-founders of Intel, was asked by Electronics Magazine to submit an article predicting what was going to happen to integrated circuits, the heart of computing, in the next 10 years. Studying the trend he’d seen in the previous few years, Moore predicted that every year we’d double the number of transistors that could fit on a single chip of silicon so you’d get twice as much computing power for only slightly more money. When that came true, in 1975, he modified his prediction to a doubling roughly every two years. “Moore’s Law” has essentially held up ever since — and, despite the skeptics, keeps chugging along, making it probably the most remarkable example ever of sustained exponential growth of a technology.

For the 50th anniversary of Moore’s Law, I interviewed Moore, now 86, at the Exploratorium in San Francisco, at a celebration in his honor co-hosted by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Intel. I asked him what he’d learned most from Moore’s Law having lasted this long.

“I guess one thing I’ve learned is once you’ve made a successful prediction, avoid making another one,” Moore said. “I’ve avoided opportunities to predict the next 10 or 50 years.”

But was he surprised by how long it has been proved basically correct?

“Oh, I’m amazed,” he said. “The original prediction was to look at 10 years, which I thought was a stretch. This was going from about 60 elements on an integrated circuit to 60,000 — a thousandfold extrapolation over 10 years. I thought that was pretty wild. The fact that something similar is going on for 50 years is truly amazing. You know, there were all kinds of barriers we could always see that [were] going to prevent taking the next step, and somehow or other, as we got closer, the engineers had figured out ways around these. But someday it has to stop. No exponential like this goes on forever.”

But what an exponential it’s been. In introducing the evening, Intel’s C.E.O., Brian Krzanich summarized where Moore’s Law has taken us. If you took Intel’s first generation microchip, the 1971 4004, and the latest chip Intel has on the market today, the fifth-generation Core i5 processor, he said, you can see the power of Moore’s Law at work: Intel’s latest chip offers 3,500 times more performance, is 90,000 times more energy efficient and about 60,000 times lower cost.

To put that another way, Krzanich said Intel engineers did a rough calculation of what would happen had a 1971 Volkswagen Beetle improved at the same rate as microchips did under Moore’s Law: “Here are the numbers: [Today] you would be able to go with that car 300,000 miles per hour. You would get two million miles per gallon of gas, and all that for the mere cost of 4 cents! Now, you’d still be stuck on the [Highway] 101 getting here tonight, but, boy, in every opening you’d be going 300,000 miles an hour!”

What is most striking in Moore’s 1965 article is how many predictions he got right about what these steadily improving microchips would enable. The article, entitled “Cramming More Components Onto Integrated Circuits,” argued that: “Integrated circuits will lead to such wonders as home computers — or at least terminals connected to a central computer — automatic controls for automobiles, and personal portable communications equipment. The electronic wristwatch needs only a display to be feasible today. … In telephone communications, integrated circuits in digital filters will separate channels on multiplex equipment. [They] will also switch telephone circuits and perform data processing.”

Moore pretty much anticipated the personal computer, the cellphone, self-driving cars, the iPad, Big Data and the Apple Watch. How did he do that? (The only thing he missed, I jokingly told him, was “microwave popcorn.”)

“Well,” said Moore, “I had been looking at integrated circuits — [they] were really new at that time, only a few years old — and they were very expensive. There was a lot of argument as to why they would never be cheap, and I was beginning to see, from my position as head of a laboratory, that the technology was going to go in the direction where we would get more and more stuff on a chip and it would make electronics less expensive. … I had no idea it was going to turn out to be a relatively precise prediction, but I knew the general trend was in that direction and had to give some kind of a reason why it was important to lower the cost of electronics.”

Can it continue? Every year someone predicts the demise of Moore’s Law, and they’re wrong. With enough good engineers working on it, he hoped, “we won’t hit a dead end. … It’s [a] unique technology. I can’t see anything really comparable that has gone on for this long a period of time with exponential growth.”

But let’s remember that it was enabled by a group of remarkable scientists and engineers, in an America that did not just brag about being exceptional, but invested in the infrastructure and basic scientific research, and set the audacious goals, to make it so. If we want to create more Moore’s Law-like technologies, we need to invest in the building blocks that produced that America.

Alas today our government is not investing in basic research the way it did when the likes of Moore and Robert Noyce, the co-inventor of the integrated circuit and the other co-founder of Intel, were coming of age.

“I’m disappointed that the federal government seems to be decreasing its support of basic research,” said Moore. “That’s really where these ideas get started. They take a long time to germinate, but eventually they lead to some marvelous advances. Certainly, our whole industry came out of some of the early understanding of the quantum mechanics of some of the materials. I look at what’s happening in the biological area, which is the result of looking more detailed at the way life works, looking at the structure of the genes and one thing and another. These are all practical applications that are coming out of some very fundamental research, and our position in the world of fundamental science has deteriorated pretty badly. There are several other countries that are spending a significantly higher percentage of their G.N.P. than we are on basic science or on science, and ours is becoming less and less basic.”

How did he first get interested in science, I asked?

“My neighbor got a chemistry set and we could make explosives,” he said. “In those days, chemistry sets had some really neat things in them, and I decided about then I wanted to be a chemist not knowing quite what they did, and I continued my work in a home laboratory for some period of time. Got to the point where I was turning out nitroglycerin in small production quantities and turning it to dynamite. … A couple ounces of dynamite makes a marvelous firecracker. That really got my early interest in it. You couldn’t duplicate that today, but there are other opportunities. You know, I look at what some of my grandkids are doing, for example, those robotics and the like. These are spectacular. They’re really making a lot of progress.”

Looking back on Moore’s Law and the power of computing that it has driven, I asked Moore what he thought was its most important contribution over the past 50 years.

“Wow!” he said. “You know, just the proliferation of computing power. We’ve just seen the beginning of what computers are going to do for us.”

How so?

“Oh, I think incrementally we see them taking over opportunities that we tried to do without them before and were not successful,” he added. “It’s kind of the evolution into the machine intelligence, if you wish, and this is not happening in one step. To me, it’s happening in a whole bunch of increments. I never thought I’d see autonomous automobiles driving on the freeways. It wasn’t many years ago [they] put out a request to see who could build a car that could go across the Mojave Desert to Las Vegas from a place in Southern California, and several engineering teams across the country set out to do this. Nobody got more than about 300 yards before there was a problem. Two years later, they made the full 25-mile trip across this desert track, and which I thought was a huge achievement, and from that it was just a blink before they were driving on the freeways. I think we’re going to see incremental advances like that in a variety of other areas.”

Did he worry, I asked Moore, whose own microprocessors seemed as sharp as ever, that machines would really start to replace both white-collar and blue-collar labor at a scale that could mean the end of work for a lot of people?

“Don’t blame me!” he exclaimed! “I think it’s likely we’re going to continue to see that. You know, for several years, I have said we’re a two-class society separated by education. I think we’re seeing the proof of some of that now.”

When was the moment he came home and said to his wife, Betty, “Honey, they’ve named a law after me?”

Answered Moore: “For the first 20 years, I couldn’t utter the terms Moore’s Law. It was embarrassing. It wasn’t a law. Finally, I got accustomed to it where now I could say it with a straight face.”

Given that, is there something that he wishes he had predicted — like Moore’s Law — but did not? I asked.

“The importance of the Internet surprised me,” said Moore. “It looked like it was going to be just another minor communications network that solved certain problems. I didn’t realize it was going to open up a whole universe of new opportunities, and it certainly has. I wish I had predicted that.”

And now we get to Mr. Bruni:

Already the polling for the presidential race is feverish, with new findings daily. Which Republican is leading in New Hampshire? How do voters feel, at any evanescent moment, about Hillary Clinton?

But there’s a climate in the country that’s larger than any contender, strangely resistant to the sorts of ups and downs that a campaign endures and as crucial to the outcome of the election as the clash of personalities that commands the lion’s share of our attention.

It’s a mood of overarching uncertainty and profound anxiety. And it’s so ingrained at this point that we tend to overlook it.

For a stunningly long period now, American voters have been pessimistic about the country’s future — and their own. They sense that both at home and abroad, we have lost ground and keep losing more.

And the presidency may well be determined not by any candidate’s fine-tuned calibration on hot-button issues or by cunning electoral arithmetic. It may hinge on eloquence, boldness and a bigger picture.

If one of the aspirants can give credible voice to Americans’ insecurity and trace a believable path out of it, he or she will almost certainly be victorious.

In a column a year ago, I noted that for a solid decade, the percentage of Americans who said that the United States was on the wrong track had exceeded the percentage who said that it was on the right track, according to polling by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal. I wondered about a change in the very psychology and identity of a country once famous for its sunniness about tomorrows.

Since then the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has asked the right track/wrong track question another 10 times, and “wrong track” has continued to prevail without interruption and by substantial margins. The split as of two weeks ago was 62 percent to 28 percent.

Other polls have yielded similar findings even as unemployment dropped and the recession faded ever further from view.

Some projections validate voters’ gloom. In The Washington Post recently, Robert Samuelson observed that while the American economy expanded at an average annual rate of 4 percent from 1950 to 1973, it’s predicted to grow just 2.1 percent annually over the next decade. The 6 percent increases that weren’t uncommon in the 1990s are apparently long gone.

“We can’t do much about this,” Samuelson wrote, citing the retirement of baby boomers and the spread of new technologies that could sideline workers.

The latter dynamic is the focus of a new book, “Rise of the Robots,” that’s about as scary as the title suggests. It’s not science fiction, but rather a vision (almost) of economic Armageddon.

Its author, Martin Ford, invokes robots as a metaphor for the technological innovations, including better software and sophisticated algorithms, that have or will put machines in jobs once held by people. Computers, he notes, can now perform legal, pharmaceutical and medical work. They can produce journalism.

In a conversation on Tuesday, he told me: “If you automate all of these jobs, and technology drives down wages, then consumers have less purchasing power, which can lead to a downward economic spiral.”

Lead to? We’ve known ample spiraling already, and the context for Americans’ apprehensions is a flourishing debate about whether the American moment is over.

The title of a gathering of professors, politicians and writers at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., later this week asks: “Is the United States at a Crossroads?” Specific panels will mull related questions: “America’s Decline: Myth or Reality?” and “Is the United States Still the ‘Indispensable Nation’?”

In The Times last month, Jonathan Weisman interviewed officials involved in the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and noted that “concern is rising in many quarters that the United States is retreating from global economic leadership.”

The economist Edwin Truman, who worked in the Obama administration, told Weisman: “We’re withdrawing from the central place we held on the international stage.”

This sense of American drift, of American sputtering, informs President Obama’s current push for a sweeping trade agreement and his support for energy exploration, including drilling in the Atlantic and the Arctic. He’s after some economic juice.

It will inform the 2016 presidential election, too. Politicians and voters will wrangle in the foreground over taxes, the minimum wage, student debt, immigration.

But in the background looms a crisis of confidence that threatens to become the new American way. Let’s hope for a candidate with the vision and courage to tackle that.

In the comments “craig geary” of Redlands, FL had this to say:  “Imagine for a moment that the trillions of dollars wasted on near perpetual war in the Middle East had been spent here, building high speed rail, world class mass transit, switching over, as we must, to clean, infinitely renewable energy, free University education and for universal healthcare.  Our society and outlook would be quite different.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: